I am posting here on behalf of Huw Groucutt, University of Oxford, who would like to contribute but is otherwise engaged today.
I would like to suggest that the term "Middle Palaeolithic" be applied in preference to other terms such as Middle Stone Age and Mousterian. The latter is a strange term, with too much of a Eurocentric baggage. The former was concocted
by Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe in the 1920's when they thought that assemblages in South Africa looked similar to Middle Palaeolithic material from Europe, but because of their social context they presumed that it must be younger than in Europe, and influenced
by 'Mousterians' from the North (their 1929 publication is quite explicit on this). I find this idea extremely problematic, if not racist...Now there is something of the opposite trend, where somehow calling things 'Middle Stone Age' in areas such as North
Africa and Arabia is progressive in some way. We should recognise that these are words, with their historical baggage. Contrasts are often drawn between Europe (Middle Pal) and Africa (Middle Stone Age), but the elephant in the room here is Asia, where assemblages
have generally been described as Middle Palaeolithic. In Asia there is not the neat (probably too neat) split between Neanderthals (Europe) and Homo sapiens (Africa).
I would like to suggest that Middle Palaeolithic should be used as a general term for assemblages between the Early/Lower Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic/Late Stone Age/Late Palaeolithic. They are assemblages dominated by prepared core
reduction (particularly Levallois and discoidal methods), covering the period from approximately 300 until 40/30 ka. I find the diasctintion between Africanist and Eurasian terminology deeply unhelpful, and if you could raise this and call for a general use
of the term 'Middle Palaeolithic', I would appreciate it. Further discussion can be found, for example, in a paper bay James Blinkhorn and myself in Quaternary International (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213001870)
1.2 - Resolving the Early, Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, and sub-divisions
This issue on the other hand may be the most problematic of the day. We may not be able to fix it today, but I hope we can at least have a good discussion of the various angles and issues arising,
and then maybe arrange a suitable group of interested stakeholders from the academic, heritage and curatorial communities to form a subsequent working group to try and reach a consensus for improvement. On the other hand, we may all agree, which would be marvellous.
The current period framework (previously att) shows "Lower Palaeolithic" as from -500,000 to -150,000, and "Middle Palaeolithic" as from -150,000 to -40,000. Besides the fact that the start
date for Lower Palaeolithic needs to be pushed back (see 1.1 above), this raises the questions of (a) how to distinguish Lower from Middle Palaeolithic, (b) what date best divides the two, and (c) whether a revised framework with more than two sub-divisions
is required for the current Lower/Middle Palaeolithic.
If we agree that it is still worth attempting to maintain a discourse of dated cultural periods for the Palaeolithic [and for the past in general], then the earlier "Lower/Middle" part of the
Palaeolithic now looks very different to when these terms were first conceived in the 19th century. In particular, we now [in Britain] have:
- intermittent episodes of occupation well before the Anglian ice-age [MIS 12 in geological terms - to be discussed later, item 1.5] characterised by flake/core industries
- episodes from shortly before (or perhaps during) the Anglian characterised by handaxe manufacture (eg. Boxgrove), and perhaps also the flake-tool industry of High Lodge (although the dating of this latter occurrence
is currently under debate)
- Britain is then thought to be uninhabited (and uninhabitable) at the peak of the Anglian glaciation
- a period of periodically intense occupation post-Anglian occupation through to perhaps MIS 6 characterised by a wider variety of lithic technological approaches, including handaxe-making, non-handaxe-making (Clactonian)
and Levalloisian (of various types). Handaxe-dominated industries persist through to c. 250,000 BP, within MIS 8 (eg. Harnham). The best-dated occurrences of Levalloisian occur between c. 300,000 and 230,000 BP [from MIS 8 and early MIS 7], but isolated instances
of material that is technologically Levalloisian may occur much earlier.
- Britain is currently thought to be unoccupied from the cold episode of MIS 6 through to at least the end of the warm interglacial episode of MIS 5e (the Ipswichian, c. 130,000-115,000 BP).
- Then after that there are intermittent "later Middle Palaeolithic" episodes of Neanderthal occupation in the last glacial period, through the period from (perhaps as early as) MIS 5d to MIS 4/3, including episodes
characterised by use of bout coupé handaxes (eg. Lynford).
The conventional distinction between Lower and Middle Palaeolithic is based on the appearance of Levallois technology, but this ceases to be useful [if one is trying to describe a period, rather
than merely a technological approach] if Levalloisian technology may occur earlier than though, and handaxe-making occurs later, and there is substantial overlap between the two. It may therefore be worth trying not just to redefine "Lower" and "Middle" Palaeolithic,
but instead to develop a new framework.
There are two main issues here, firstly to try and agree on useful period ranges, and secondly to agree a sensible preferred name; suggestions here are very provisional, and for debate.
Then, having sorted out these issues, there will be the subsidiary issue of writing the definitions for any revised periods - I would like discussion to focus on the two main issues, since
the detailed definitions then follow on. I fully accept that the wording of the current EH definitions leaves a lot of scope for improvement, but there's no point in going to town on revising definitions of "Lower" and "Middle" Palaeolithic [and many of the
other terms] if we are going to revise the framework with new periods.
Three new periods are proposed for the period prior to the occupational hiatus of MIS 5e, the Ipswichian interglacial, and a fourth new period is proposed to cover late Middle Palaeolithic
occupation of Britain after MIS 5e.
1.2.1 - "Early Palaeolithic", an umbrella term covering from the first occupation of Britain [-850,000] up to MIS 5e [-125,000];
1.2.2 - "Lower Palaeolithic" or "Early Lower Palaeolithic", covering from the first occupation of Britain [-850,000] up to the occupational hiatus of
the major Anglian glaciation, MIS 12 [-450,000];
1.2.3 - "Late Lower Palaeolithic", "Lower/Middle Palaeolithic" or "Early Middle Palaeolithic", covering from MIS 12 [-450,000] to MIS 5e [-125,000].
1.2.4 - "British Mousterian" or "Late Middle Palaeolithic", covering from after MIS 5e [-115,000] to the start of the Upper Palaeolithic [-40,000].
There is also of course the additional issue of how to deal with material (eg. Beedings) that could be construed as transitional between "Middle Palaeolithic" (sensu current) and Upper
Palaeolithic.
Finally, just in case it becomes relevant to discussion, it is useful to bear in mind that it has been officially agreed that specified date ranges for defined periods CAN overlap. For instance,
one could have "British Mousterian" from -115,000 to -30,000, and Upper Palaeolithic from -45,000 through to -9,500. [NB - at this later point of course we have to start being concerned with C14 calibration, and the difference between BC and BP, which is negligible/irrelevant
for earlier parts of the Palaeolithic due to dating imprecision]
Comments/suggestions please..
Homepage:
www.soton.ac.uk/~ffws/New_ffws/index.html
Francis Wenban-Smith (Dr)
Department of Archaeology (CAHOR
- Centre for Applied Human Origins Research)
University of Southampton (Avenue Campus)
Southampton, Hants
SO17 1BF
02380-596 864 (direct)
07771-623 096 (mobile)
